Illinois Week Pressers

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Adding to this, we also run our offense at a very slow pace.  I saw a stat before the Michigan game that both teams ranked above 100 in offensive tempo (which I think was  plays/minute).

 

This is definitely a large part of it.  Not that we couldn't do a better job of keeping the ball.  

 

But we're currently #117 in plays per minute.  It also doesn't help that Minnesota is #102 and Michigan is #132.  And Louisiana Tech isn't any too fast at #70.  So most of our opponents also have played pretty slowly.  Colorado is #19.

[Undone]

45 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Frost's creativity on offense was not the problem.

 

And if you had read the roughly 8 previous posts, you'd notice that the discussion wasn't about that at all.

[Undone]

46 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Right now, Nebraska isn’t running very many plays, because we aren’t doing well enough on first and second down, which is causing our average 3rd down to go to be too long.

 

Totally agree with this. The design and intent is good - use simple, heavy sets to work your way into 3rd & short and control your opponent.

 

And this was usually not Frost's approach (at least not in the first couple years as much, maybe it was towards the end). So I definitely support doing something different under Rhule, going a different route is great. It's just a question of whether it's really working. And if it isn't, maybe need to mix it up in some way.

 

  

21 minutes ago, Mavric said:

But we're currently #117 in plays per minute.

 

I'm assuming you'd probably agree though that yards per play is the more equalizing metric - and then you couple it with stats on 3rd down conversions. I'm not sure if the stats get tracked for distance on 3rd down on average or not. But that was 'Husk's good point - we're probably not getting into 3rd & short enough, and that's kind of this offense's goal.

[Lorewarn]

Are people under the assumption that what we're doing right now is Satterfield and Rhule's dream offense? I'm not.

 

I think they're doing the best job with the guys they have in year 1 in adapting it and 'shutting it down' so to speak to give the team its best chance at winning. It doesn't seem dissimilar to early in Bo's tenure when A. we strategically shut the offense down into a slow plodding essentially bad ball control approach and B. from '08 until Taylor's redshirt freshman season in 2010 they were slowly building out their ideal offense as a hybrid of WCO passing schemes with a zone read quarterback run game that they wanted for the future. 

[Undone]

15 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Are people under the assumption that what we're doing right now is Satterfield and Rhule's dream offense? I'm not.

 

What would you surmise their ideal offensive scheme is? Genuinely asking.

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

What would you surmise their ideal offensive scheme is? Genuinely asking.

I'm thinking a predominantly power run offense with a much more effective passing game than we have now.  They would have a QB that's accurate and doesn't turn the ball over with receivers that can stretch the defense and TEs that can can be dominant in the short to mid range passing game.

[Undone]

39 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm thinking a predominantly power run offense with a much more effective passing game than we have now.  They would have a QB that's accurate and doesn't turn the ball over with receivers that can stretch the defense and TEs that can can be dominant in the short to mid range passing game.

 

Not trying to bite your head off here at all, but those things are so obvious that they're almost not worth mentioning, are they? You basically said "they want better players and they want everything to be more effective." Like, even Georgia & Michigan might say that. Any team probably could and would. But I'm sure you're right on "power run" at a minimum.

 

So yeah...I doubt they want to win every game 14-13 and I doubt they'd be disappointed or anything if they were routinely winning games 42-13 where big, explosive plays put points on the board, right?

 

I thought maybe Lorewarn was insinuating that even the scheme itself might be something they'd like to change in future seasons if they could.

 

Here's what I don't really love: I don't really love the idea that there'd be no variability to the slow, plodding offense. If you have a bad defensive game, you're screwed. I understand that Rhule wants to rest the defense and wants to wear the other team down by early in the 4th quarter and I think those things are good.

 

My bigger concern with what I've seen so far is Satterfield just being a bit too predictable.

[Lorewarn]

23 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

What would you surmise their ideal offensive scheme is? Genuinely asking.

 

 

I'm not sure and I'm also very far from an expert on X's and O's but I would venture to guess it would be somewhat comparable to Tim Beck's 2012 offense.

[Undone]

30 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm not sure and I'm also very far from an expert on X's and O's but I would venture to guess it would be somewhat comparable to Tim Beck's 2012 offense.

 

I really liked that offense. In fact, I'm not sure there was anything I didn't like about it.

 

I can't remember exactly, but I'm thinking one big difference there would be that our 2012 offense had a much higher tempo. It does make you wonder whether Rhule would go so slow even if he was working with significantly better players.

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

We actually did this in one of the games.  I can't remember which but we ran the same off-tackle power pulling a backside OL about 8 times in a row and scored.

 

Then we didn't go back to it.

I wanna say LA Tech we ran the same play 3 or 4 times in a row, and then the next series was the 3 passes and out.

[Toe]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

Are people under the assumption that what we're doing right now is Satterfield and Rhule's dream offense? I'm not.

 

I think they're doing the best job with the guys they have in year 1 in adapting it and 'shutting it down' so to speak to give the team its best chance at winning.

 

And I'm glad for that - I'd much rather they show some humility and flexibility with their approach, rather than try to force-feed a system that ain't gonna work with the players they currently have available.

[Mavric]

57 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I wanna say LA Tech we ran the same play 3 or 4 times in a row, and then the next series was the 3 passes and out.

 

I was thinking LA Tech but couldn't find the drive I was looking for.

 

But looking again, I think it was our first drive of the second half.  There was a little more of HH running than I thought but it was nine plays - all runs - and scored a TD.  I was thinking "we finally decided to just run in down their throat."  Then we came out throwning the next possession, got a holding penalty and punted. 

[Mavric]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

I'm assuming you'd probably agree though that yards per play is the more equalizing metric - and then you couple it with stats on 3rd down conversions. I'm not sure if the stats get tracked for distance on 3rd down on average or not. But that was 'Husk's good point - we're probably not getting into 3rd & short enough, and that's kind of this offense's goal.

 

Yes, I think YPP gives a much better picture of efficiency.  I was just pointing out that part of why our overall offensive stats are down is because we play slow and several of our opponents have done the same.

 

I thought I could find some stats on average yards to go but I've struck out so far.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

[Mavric]